Need help with "Das Kapital" please...

[Grunt]

Hello comrades ! Greetings !

I am new. I haven't read much about Socialism yet.

A year ago I read Karl Marx's "Das Kapital - Band 1" - but
I understood very little.

I speak german - so I thought I read it in the german
original (he wrote it in german, didn't he ?).


Honestly - I found the book very very tough to read.

---------------------------------------

Does anyone have some tips how to read it ? Like
which chapter first ?

Or do I need complementary litterature ? If yes - what
do you recommend ?

And: What about volumes 2 and 3. Are they equally
important ?

Everybody seems always only to talk about the first
volume - so I am wondering.

Thanks in advance for your help, comrades !

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

it is really difficult to read independently. It is essentially a power critique of capitalism as it existed in marx's day and age. So, you not only need to be able to understand what he says, but also the context in which it was written.


I actually found a book by Trotsky, called "the essential marx" a big help, as it is selections of Capital (chosen by Trotsky, make of that what you will) on some of the most important areas.

Also, something i have a massive problem with, is deconstructing sentences and paragraphs which dont mean anything to me, until it is broken down into chunks, understood independently and then put together as a whole.

[mikelepore]

And: What about volumes 2 and 3. Are they equally important ?

Decided for yourself whether this means anything. Volume 1, containing 33 chapters, was the only part that Marx ever considered to be finished, and he sent it to the publisher in 1867. Additional manuscripts remained unfinished for many years. After Marx died in 1883, Engels collected Marx's notes. Engels edited Marx's notes at least to the extent of turning them into complete sentences, paragraphs and chapters. No one can know whether Engels added or deleted anything that could have changed the meaning. Then Engels sent the result of his editing to the publisher, and that is what volumes 2 and 3 are. Some readers have disagreed about the extent to which volumes 2 and 3 are what Marx "would have intended" to say. Some people believe that Marx and Engels agreed on everything, and some other people don't.

[mikelepore]

Or do I need complementary litterature ? If yes - what do you recommend ?

I have heard many readers say that they consider two of Marx's speeches turned into pamphlets, entitled "Wage Labor and Capital" and "Value, Price and Profit" to be beneficial to read as introductions, before reading "Capital." These pamphlets can be found online at marxists.org .

Chaper 1 of "Capital" is worth the time to read slowly. It contains basic definitions and concepts that are needed later.

Chapter 13 of "Capital" can be read by itself for an easy introduction to Marx's view of collective production, cooperation, the need for industry to have a central directing authority.

[Cossack]

I'm reading Capital also. I have volume 2, very hard to understand especially for a 14yr old, but I can translate a page if I have the given time.

[dirtycommiebastard]

I would not suggest reading Capital as an introduction to Socialism.

If you are beginning to learn about Marx and Engels writings, may I suggest something much smaller? Wage Labour and Capital is quite small but is an essential read, and it is much easier to understand that Capital.

[Organic Revolution]

Dont. There are many better written books than Capital... Capital is behind the times.

[Grunt]

I actually found a book by Trotsky, called "the essential marx" a big help, as it is selections of Capital (chosen by Trotsky, make of that what you will) on some of the most important areas.

Thanks, comrade !

Found it, ordered it. It's cheap.
I have read some Trotsky earlier and found him quite
'readable' e.g. "Revolution betrayed"

[Grunt]

I have heard many readers say that they consider two of Marx's speeches turned into pamphlets, entitled "Wage Labor and Capital" and "Value, Price and Profit" to be beneficial to read as introductions, before reading "Capital." These pamphlets can be found online at marxists.org .
Thanks comrade ! I will check them out !!



Chaper 1 of "Capital" is worth the time to read slowly. It contains basic definitions and concepts that are needed later.
OK ! I find especially chapter 1 very very theoretical, dry and arid.

Some say: "Skip it and read it later." What do you think of that ?



Chapter 13 of "Capital" can be read by itself for an easy introduction to Marx's view of collective production, cooperation, the need for industry to have a central directing authority.
Thanks, I believe I remember that chapter. Its quite famous, isn't it ?

[Grunt]

I'm reading Capital also. I have volume 2, very hard to understand especially for a 14yr old, but I can translate a page if I have the given time.
Wow ! :) You are reading volume 2 already ? Respect, comrade !

Now I feel really stupid, having such difficulties with Vol. 1 ! :(

But its not your fault !! Don't worry !

The fact that you are only 14 and already reading Vol. 2
gives me real motivation and incentive ! Thanks !

[Grunt]

I would not suggest reading Capital as an introduction to Socialism.
I see. Is it because it is too theoretical and difficult to read ?
Or has everything changed so much since the times when Marx
wrote it ? :confused:



If you are beginning to learn about Marx and Engels writings, may I suggest something much smaller? Wage Labour and Capital is quite small but is an essential read, and it is much easier to understand that Capital.
Thanks comrade ! I will read "Wage Labour and Capital'" as soon as
possible ! :)

Thanks for helping me ! :)

[Grunt]

Dont. There are many better written books than Capital... Capital is behind the times.
You mean - not at all ?? :confused:

I am confused...:(

But thanks for your input comrade, I really appreciate ! :)

_________________________________________

May I ask what books you think are better for a newbie ?


I know only little, I am afraid. Basically I have only read
some Trotzky and Berkman.

[professorchaos]

Limits to Capital by Harvey is also an excellent analysis not only of Das Kapital but of Marxist political economy in general. He answers common critiques of Marxist theory and adds his own conclusions as well, and applies it all to modern times. Recommended reading for all commies.

[Grunt]

Limits to Capital by Harvey is also an excellent analysis not only of Das Kapital but of Marxist political economy in general. He answers common critiques of Marxist theory and adds his own conclusions as well, and applies it all to modern times. Recommended reading for all commies.
Thanks comrade professor ! :)

I will check whether its available here - I only hope
its not one of those mega-expensive books...

[dirtycommiebastard]

You mean - not at all ?? :confused:

I am confused...:(

But thanks for your input comrade, I really appreciate ! :)

_________________________________________

May I ask what books you think are better for a newbie ?


I know only little, I am afraid. Basically I have only read
some Trotzky and Berkman.

Don't listen to this. Capital may be old, and analyze a different epoch in capitalism but is an essential read for any Marxist though, to understand the capitalist system.

I suggest everyone read it, eventually. I wouldn't ask an anarchist to tell you what Marxist books to read comrade.

[Grunt]

Limits to Capital by Harvey is quite expensive...:(

I can only buy it when I have the money...



Don't listen to this. Capital may be old, and analyze a different epoch in capitalism but is an essential read for any Marxist though, to understand the capitalist system.

I suggest everyone read it, eventually. I wouldn't ask an anarchist to tell you what Marxist books to read comrade.
I am an anarchist myself :) - but believe that there must be a
socialist transition period. Thats why I read some Trotzky.

Now I must learn more. And since I already have 'Das Kapital-1' I
am going to read it. ...and try to understand at least some of it. :blushing:

Its very interesting though - that different comrades have
very different opinions about it !

I like that ! :)

[dirtycommiebastard]

So you are an anarchist, but believe in a transitionary period like socialism?

What do you mean exactly, because Marxists agree that during this period, a state must exist. If you believe this also, the I wouldn't call you an anarchist.

[Grunt]

So you are an anarchist, but believe in a transitionary period like socialism?
Yes !



What do you mean exactly, because Marxists agree that during this period, a state must exist. If you believe this also, the I wouldn't call you an anarchist.
Why not ? Socialism, Marxism - its a means to an end.

Now I dunno nothing. I am not smart and haven't read as many
books as all the other comrades.

So my approach is very naive at this point. Sorry ! :(

Immediate Anarchy is a utopia - it won't work.

[Kropotesta]

Yes !


Why not ? Socialism, Marxism - its a means to an end.

Now I dunno nothing. I am not smart and haven't read as many
books as all the other comrades.

So my approach is very naive at this point. Sorry ! :(

Immediate Anarchy is a utopia - it won't work.
well it depends, do you believe in centralised power, espcially in regards to the transiatory state? If so you're a communist by the sounds of it.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Alright well to help you out, I will try to outline very vaguely the difference between Marxism and Anarchism.

Marxists believe that during a revolutionary period, the workers must take control of the means of production, and through this process, and the creation of Soviets (workers councils), that a government can be created through election of representatives from the bottom up to create a State which can efficiently plan the economy. Eventually the state will fade away as its usefulness will become redundant as the workers will learn that this form of organization can be completely done by them alone.

Most Anarchists believe the workers must take control of the means of production as well, but believe that a State is not necessary for the transition from capitalism to communism and that society will automatically organize itself into such a society.

You can ask other Anarchists for more indepth explanations into their beliefs, but I strongly believe they are idealist(under risk of starting a war :)) and are not based on any world view, unlike Marxism which is based on Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism which explains that all motion, and the motion of history is the result of contradiction.

[Grunt]

well it depends, do you believe in centralised power, espcially in regards to the transiatory state? If so you're a communist by the sounds of it.
Yes I belive in centralized power during the transition period.
Then education of the people begins - to make them realize that
greed and envy can not be cornerstones of a society.

And also that they - in the end - really don't need a state. No gods
and no masters.

Slowly, depending on the progress and depending on the other
'dominoes' falling - the power and influence of the centralized
power will be diminished, the state will become smaller and smaller.

I know I am naive. I am not that smart. And all you other comrades
know tons and tons...:(

[Kropotesta]

basically anarchists believe in free soviets and communists believe in soviets with a centralised state with power. As anarchists we object to the State is it will produce a new ruling elite.

[Kropotesta]

Yes I belive in centralized power during the transition period.
Then education of the people begins - to make them realize that
greed and envy can not be cornerstones of a society.

And also that they - in the end - really don't need a state. No gods
and no masters.

Slowly, depending on the progress and depending on the other
'dominoes' falling - the power and influence of the centralized
power will be diminished, the state will become smaller and smaller.

Yeah, you're a Marxist, but there's hope for you yet!

[dirtycommiebastard]

As anarchists we object to the State is it will produce a new ruling elite.

A new ruling elite?

Well, let us look at the ruling elite now. Why do THEY have power over the working class.

Some very simple reasons.
-They own and control the means of production
-They are and control armed bodies of people, i.e. the army, the police force, etc.

Under socialism, the workers will control the means of production, and a standing army will not exist which can be used against the workers, as the the only armed body will be the workers themselves who volunteer to defend their own interests.

So you see, the State really has no power over the workers, as the State IS the workers. Workers who are recallable at any time from their positions.

Also, Grunt, may I suggest some immediate reading to better understand Marxism?

-Communist Manifesto
-Wage Labour and Capital
-Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Also; If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me.


Yeah, you're a Marxist, but there's hope for you yet!
Comrade, I hope that hope exists for you! :)

[Kropotesta]

A new ruling elite?

Well, let us look at the ruling elite now. Why do THEY have power over the working class.
So why replace it with a new one as you did in Russia, China and so on.
I didn't say we don't have one now.....:laugh:


Some very simple reasons.
-They own and control the means of production
-They are and control armed bodies of people, i.e. the army, the police force, etc.
Are you trying to point out the obvious?


Under socialism, the workers will control the means of production, and a standing army will not exist which can be used against the workers, as the the only armed body will be the workers themselves who volunteer to defend their own interests.
Anarchists also say this.


So you see, the State really has no power over the workers, as the State IS the workers. Workers who are recallable at any time from their positions.
No, the vanguard becomes the state, well atleast in practice. Also they are not "recallable", heard of the Gulags?


Comrade, I hope that hope exists for you!:)
Straight back at you.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Are you trying to point out the obvious?
No, explaining very basically for the new comrade.



Anarchists also say this.
Alright.



No, the vanguard becomes the state, well atleast in practice. Also they are not "recallable", heard of the Gulags?

What is your point?

As if every Marxist defends Stalinist Russia.

And officials should be recallable. No one here argues otherwise. I think you are trying to take advantage of the fact that I am a new member who most likely doesn't know much.

[Kropotesta]

What is your point?

As if every Marxist defends Stalinist Russia.
The point is that Bakunin predicted this would happen if a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was set up both the Russian revolution even started.

[dirtycommiebastard]

The point is that Bakunin predicted this would happen if a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was set up both the Russian revolution even started.

There never was real Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Russia. Though the 'anti-revisionists' may claim otherwise.

[Kropotesta]

There never was real Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Russia. Though the 'anti-revisionists' may claim otherwise.
So what makes you think that next time would working differently?

[dirtycommiebastard]

So what makes you think that next time would working differently?

Because, a few failures does not indicate the complete failure of the idea.

It is the power of history, not only in the sense that we can learn from the mistakes of the past, but the proletariat will take power if the the vanguard is built on the proper ideological basis. To do this, we MUST learn from the past.

[Kropotesta]

Because, a few failures does not indicate the complete failure of the idea.

It is the power of history, not only in the sense that we can learn from the mistakes of the past, but the proletariat will take power if the the vanguard is built on the proper ideological basis. To do this, we MUST learn from the past.
How about promoting the working class to revolutionise itself rather than having some small elitist vanguard party that will exploit and lead on the working class. Just like how the SWP appartently considers themselves a vanguard :lol:

[dirtycommiebastard]

How about promoting the working class to revolutionise itself rather than having some small elitist vanguard party that will exploit and lead on the working class. Just like how the SWP appartently considers themselves a vanguard :lol:

Yes, every cadre building organization must be prepared to accept being the vanguard if the opportunity arises. To think otherwise is childish. I think it was Engels who said that all sects are justified until ones becomes the vanguard, then they become reactionary. Not that I necessarily support the SWP.

It is important that we prepare for such an occasion.

And the vanguard does not exist to 'exploit' the working class, but to lead it to revolution. This can only be accomplished by working within the working class and pushing revolutionary ideas.

[Omi]

I know I am naive. I am not that smart. And all you other comrades
know tons and tons...:(


Well ofcourse this is not true. The thing is, people only respond to posts they think they can respond to with new and usefull arguements. If we would post everything we didn't know, the forum would get kinda crowdy, if you catch my drift.:lol:

Furthermore, from the looks of it you are a marxist, describing the basics of marxism.

I personally think a centralised party tasked with ''preparing'' the proletariat for a new form of society evokes brainwashing and disturbing authoritairian ruling. Mental exploitation is just as exploitative as material exploitation, which some communists fail to recognise.

I would recommend The Conquest of Bread, a great book by Peter Kropotkin, which is more understandable then Das Kapital. I learned a lot from it, and my doubts about anarchist theory where completely vanished when I finished it. The Communist Manifest is also very good, as it helped me understand how capitalism works and how it stands in history better!

I think I am in a pretty similar situation as you, particulairly the total astonishment I felt when seeïng al this knowledge posessed by people in the revolutionary movement. But I think this is just a good thing, people can learn a lot from it!:)

[mikelepore]

OK ! I find especially chapter 1 very very theoretical, dry and arid. Some say: "Skip it and read it later." What do you think of that ?

For a first pass through, you can make it less dry by scanning the text vertically and noting that some paragraphs are about defining basic concepts and addressing misconceptions. For example the paragraph that begins: ""A thing can be a use-value, without having value...." The paragraph that begins: "The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour-power by the duration...." The paragraph that begins: "Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskillful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production...." He's defining his vocabulary step by step, and he's answering several objections in advance. The wise-guys over in the Opposing Ideologies forum who think they discovered some great "flaw" in Marx, and it *always* turns out that they are incorrectly praphrasing what Marx really said -- guess where they would have found most of their answers, if they had bothered to look? In chapter 1.

[Grunt]

basically anarchists believe in free soviets and communists believe in soviets with a centralised state with power. As anarchists we object to the State is it will produce a new ruling elite.
Yeah - free sovjets - in the end !! But I still believe that (once the
revolution is accomplished and the dominoes are collapsing) that
a centralized state is necessary for the transition.

Thats why I naively think that socialism/marxism etc. is a means to an
end.:)

[Grunt]

Yeah, you're a Marxist, but there's hope for you yet!
I am ?? I didn't know ! :)

Although I am young, a newbie and dunno nothing - I don't think
(from the little I know) that I am a classic, hardcore marxist.

But what do I know....

[Grunt]

....
Also, Grunt, may I suggest some immediate reading to better understand Marxism?

-Communist Manifesto
-Wage Labour and Capital
-Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Also; If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me.


Comrade, I hope that hope exists for you! :)
Thanks for trying to teach me ! :) I appreciate !
I read the manifesto - but will re-read it again.

And I promise to check out the other two !

Yes: Hope exists for me ! :D

[Grunt]

No, explaining very basically for the new comrade.
...and the new comrade (moi) thanks you for that ! :)



As if every Marxist defends Stalinist Russia.
Exactly. I know guys here from the SP (Marxist/Trotzkyist)
who acknowledge the truth about Stalin. He betrayed the
revolution.

[Grunt]

The point is that Bakunin predicted this would happen if a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was set up both the Russian revolution even started.
That is true ! Even I know that ! :)

[Grunt]

There never was real Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Russia.
Not that it matters - but from what I know - I agree !
Stalin betrayed the revolution and IMHO what came after
Lenins death didn't have very much to do with Socialism/Communism.

But I may be wrong. I don't know much. I am trying to learn. :)

[Grunt]

Yes, every cadre building organization must be prepared to accept being the vanguard if the opportunity arises.
...
And the vanguard does not exist to 'exploit' the working class, but to lead it to revolution. This can only be accomplished by working within the working class and pushing revolutionary ideas.
I know what 'vanguard' means - but I do not quite understand
what you mean.

Care to explain to a 'stupid grunt' ? :)

[Grunt]

How about promoting the working class to revolutionise itself rather than having some small elitist vanguard party that will exploit and lead on the working class. Just like how the SWP appartently considers themselves a vanguard :lol:
I think its not possible. I am realistic (not saying the you are not,
though !!). I do not think that the exploited have the means or the
time to revolutionize themselves. If further explanation wanted -
please let me know. :)

----

It will be a small group who 'kicks off' the revolution, like in russia.
Then this 'small group' must cease power and broaden to a certain
degree.

But there must be some 'inbuilt' safety-catch, so that this small
group doesn't turn into a totalitarian, stalinist regime.

The big task will be informing and teaching the people and prepare
them slowly for the time when they rule themselves and there is
no state nomore.

I know you will all probably tear me to pieces because I don't
know much and you all are much smarter - but hey: Thats why
I am called 'Grunt' ! :D

[Grunt]

Well ofcourse this is not true. The thing is, people only respond to posts they think they can respond to with new and usefull arguements. If we would post everything we didn't know, the forum would get kinda crowdy, if you catch my drift.:lol:
Yeah, I get ya ! :) I am aware that I am 'crowding' the forum
because of my stupid ideas and stupid questions and ignorance...

But I really, really wanna learn !




Furthermore, from the looks of it you are a marxist, describing the basics of marxism.
Really ? But Marx didn't say that socialism/communism was but a
means to an end, did he ? :confused:




I personally think a centralised party tasked with ''preparing'' the proletariat for a new form of society evokes brainwashing and disturbing authoritairian ruling. Mental exploitation is just as exploitative as material exploitation, which some communists fail to recognise.
Yes ! I see the danger !! And it will be very difficult. NO brainwashing
or forced education.

But how can the temporary state convince the formerly exploited and
prepare them for the day when they will truely be their own masters ?

My hope is that this is possible. But maybe I am naive. In any case
I have to study, study, study - thats for sure !



I would recommend The Conquest of Bread, a great book by Peter Kropotkin, which is more understandable then Das Kapital. I learned a lot from it, and my doubts about anarchist theory where completely vanished when I finished it. The Communist Manifest is also very good, as it helped me understand how capitalism works and how it stands in history better!

Thanks comrade ! Thanks a lot ! I will check out whether the book is
available here - and I hope its not too expensive...
I read the manifesto - but have to read it again.

Wait a sec.....

....yepp the book is available in a 2008 paperback edition and
its cheap - so I am going to order it ! :)




I think I am in a pretty similar situation as you, particulairly the total astonishment I felt when seeïng al this knowledge posessed by people in the revolutionary movement. But I think this is just a good thing, people can learn a lot from it!:)
Yes - you are right. There is so much to learn here ! I think
thats awesome !

I sure as hell will never be a leftist scholar, but I don't mind.

I wanna learn as much as possible, but I will always be a
grunt. And I take pride in that.

All I wanna be is a good comrade ! :)

[Grunt]

For a first pass through, you can make it less dry by scanning the text vertically and noting that some paragraphs are about defining basic concepts and addressing misconceptions. For example the paragraph that begins: ""A thing can be a use-value, without having value...." The paragraph that begins: "The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour-power by the duration...." The paragraph that begins: "Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskillful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production...." He's defining his vocabulary step by step, and he's answering several objections in advance. The wise-guys over in the Opposing Ideologies forum who think they discovered some great "flaw" in Marx, and it *always* turns out that they are incorrectly praphrasing what Marx really said -- guess where they would have found most of their answers, if they had bothered to look? In chapter 1.

1000 thanks for that great information comrade! I am getting less afraid of reading 'Das Kapital' - thats good !

BTW: 'Opposing Ideologies forum' ?? :confused: Are ther even fascists here
on the board ?? I certainly hope not. :cursing:

Thanks on the tips on how to read the book. And thanks for
clearing up that Chapter 1 defines the vocabulary !!

So I will start with it ! :)

[eyedrop]

I know you will all probably tear me to pieces because I don't
know much and you all are much smarter - but hey: Thats why
I am called 'Grunt' ! :D What upbringing has caused you to have a so fundamental lack of confidence in yourself? I don't doubt the school system has played a vital role in destroying your self-worth too.

The first thing you need to do is grow a spine and believe in yourself, just by your quite good grammar I can tell that you are not completely stupid. What mostly seperate how smart someone seems is mostly a indication of what they have learnt, not what how smart they are from scratch. There are differences but not that large. Someone who is a doctor now is not neccesarely smarter than you but just have been more mentally stimulated his whole life. You are not a stupid idiot!

Please start to believe it for yourself too.

[Grunt]

What upbringing has caused you to have a so fundamental lack of confidence in yourself?
Oh - I have confidence. Believe me comrade. But not when it comes
to discussing and understanding political concepts/ideologies.

I am here to learn. And its a good place ! :)
Of course I am intimidated - because all you fine comrades
know infinitely more than I do.

I am good at other things.

In time I will share some 'street experience' with you ! :D




The first thing you need to do is grow a spine and believe in yourself,
Don't worry: I have a spine. Trust me ! 'On the streets' I have
a spine and plenty of self confidence. But not in the 'library' or
the 'political debate and discussion'.

This is because I know so little. But I am learning ! :)




You are not a stupid idiot!
Thanks, comrade !



Please start to believe it for yourself too.
Don't worry - I believe in myself, but I am also aware of
my limitations ! :)

[Module]

How about promoting the working class to revolutionise itself rather than having some small elitist vanguard party that will exploit and lead on the working class. Just like how the SWP appartently considers themselves a vanguard :lol:
The vanguard means the most revolutionised sector of the working class. It is the role of the vanguard party to guide the working class in revolution, to bring them to the stage where they are ready to enact a communist revolution.
The Bolshevik Party in the USSR became the government not because they were a vanguard party, but because of other reasons, such as the socio-economic realities of Russia at the time, and the specific politics and actions of the Bolshevik Party independently.

If you're going to argue with somebody who admits to their limited knowledge of the subject (if that's what "I am a new member who most likely doesn't know much" was supposed to indicate), at least acknowledge your own.

[Grunt]

...somebody who admits to their limited knowledge of the subject (if that's what "I am a new member who most likely doesn't know much" was supposed to indicate), at least acknowledge your own.
Yes ! It doesn't only indicate - its the truth.
I know very little. Haven't read much - and
I am here to learn from you fine comrades ! :)

[eyedrop]

Oh - I have confidence. Believe me comrade. But not when it comes
to discussing and understanding political concepts/ideologies.

I am here to learn. And its a good place ! :)
Of course I am intimidated - because all you fine comrades
know infinitely more than I do.
Good. To be aware of ones shortcomings is off-course important too. I just thought you came off as a little too deferential, focused a few more times than neccesary on that you were just a grunt. But yeah, internet is a bad place too judge character. If I suddenly went into a biology conference I suppose I would have been a bit deferential to their "academic" authority on the subject.

The selfconfidence of the working class that they are fit to rule is essential to succesful revolution in my opinion. As long as we believe that we aren't fit to rule we can only end up with changing rulers.

Sorry to come off a bit harsh. It's just that i too often see people without self-confidence and that is such a waste of human potential

[Grunt]

I just thought you came off as a little too deferential, focused a few more times than neccesary on that you were just a grunt.
Sorry for that - just wanted to make it clear from the start (because
I have had bad experience at SE, where I was mocked and not
welcome...:( )



But yeah, internet is a bad place too judge character.
It sure is, comrade !



If I suddenly went into a biology conference I suppose I would have been a bit deferential to their "academic" authority on the subject.
Yes. But here (incontrast to SE) I feel welcome and nobody is
mocking me only because I am not a marxist scholar. :)



The selfconfidence of the working class that they are fit to rule is essential to succesful revolution in my opinion. As long as we believe that we aren't fit to rule we can only end up with changing rulers.
I am working class, I am what is called 'a code slave'. I myself
am certainly not fit to rule. But I might come in handy 'on the streets'. :)

Plus: I came here to learn from all you fine comrades. You share
your knowledge - for free !! I think thats great.

I got so many reading tips already - and I assure you: I will read.

I will never become an intellectual scholar. But I will learn as much
as I can. :)



Sorry to come off a bit harsh.
No, no - no worries ! I understand now. But even in the future
I must now and then adress the fact that my strenghts are not
the theotretical, highly intellectual areas - but more the practical
aspects !



It's just that i too often see people without self-confidence and that is such a waste of human potential
Yes it is. People wo have no self-confidence at all - thats a pity.

Knowing your strengths and weaknesses on the other hand is
important, I think.

---

Hälsningar från Sverige till Norge ! :)

[Kropotesta]

The Bolshevik Party in the USSR became the government not because they were a vanguard party, but because of other reasons, such as the socio-economic realities of Russia at the time, and the specific politics and actions of the Bolshevik Party independently.

Chomsky-"In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there were incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia -- workers' councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent once the Bolsheviks took over -- but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky pretty much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean, you can argue about the justification for eliminating them, but the fact is that the socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.
Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' -- that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because of the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have been food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was that true. To answer that, you've got to look at the historical facts: I don't think it was true. In fact, I think the incipient socialist structures in Russia were dismantles before the really dire conditions arose . . . But reading their own writings, my feeling is that Lenin and Trotsky knew what they were doing, it was conscious and understandable."

[Module]

Chomsky-"In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there were incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia -- workers' councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent once the Bolsheviks took over -- but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky pretty much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean, you can argue about the justification for eliminating them, but the fact is that the socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.
Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' -- that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because of the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have been food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was that true. To answer that, you've got to look at the historical facts: I don't think it was true. In fact, I think the incipient socialist structures in Russia were dismantles before the really dire conditions arose . . . But reading their own writings, my feeling is that Lenin and Trotsky knew what they were doing, it was conscious and understandable."
Re-read my post.
And possibly don't use a quote of somebody else next time as what appears to be a substitute for an independently thought out reply.

[Grunt]

Sorry Kropotesta - but I do not fully understand what the
quote means and whether you agree with Chomsky or not...:confused:

Can you please explain ? That would be awesome ! :)

[Kropotesta]

Re-read my post.
And possibly don't use a quote of somebody else next time as what appears to be a substitute for an independently thought out reply.
Using a quote does not invalidate a point or opinion.

[Module]

Using a quote does not invalidate a point or opinion.
Well then I'll have to ask you again to re-read my post and answer appropriately, because your quote didn't invalidate my point or opinion.

The events of the Russian Revolution do not necessarily constitute an argument against vanguardism, so much as an argument against mistakes made by the Bolshevik party itself, specifically.

[RedJacobin]

How to Read Marx's Capital
By Louis Althusser

http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpalthusser11.htm

[Kropotesta]

Well then I'll have to ask you again to re-read my post and answer appropriately, because your quote didn't invalidate my point or opinion.

The events of the Russian Revolution do not necessarily constitute an argument against vanguardism, so much as an argument against mistakes made by the Bolshevik party itself, specifically.
So you want an anti-vanguardism post? OK.
The Russian revolution proves anything but vanguardism works. It did not result in soviet demoncracy, instead installing a extreme centralisation. So did the Bolshevik's means justify it's ends, after they take power in November 1917?
Vanguardism also implies party power over the working class, opposed to people power. However you many be more of a Leninist than me and disagree with such an analogy. By putting everyone who deems themselves as a 'socialist' into one group and agreeing aims and such results in "autocratic" tendencies within that group. It is important to remember that the vanguard party, of the working class, cannot be confused with being the class as awhole.
You could argue that the vanguard isn't the 'embryo' of the workers state but worker councils are, thus the intention of the party is not to be the State. However if they let the workers directly take control of affairs, then this would lead to confusion from within the revolutionary party- thus they need control, this can be linked to Lenin's remark in 1920 that a organisation embracing the whole working class cannot exercise the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that a "vanguard" is required to do so.
Harman of the SWP states- it "is worth noting that in Russia a real victory of the apparatus over the party required precisely the bringing into the party hundreds of thousands of 'sympathisers,' a dilution of the 'party' by the 'class.' . . . The Leninist party does not suffer from this tendency to bureaucratic control precisely because it restricts its membership to those willing to be serious and disciplined enough to take political and theoretical issues as their starting point, and to subordinate all their activities to those." However, to have a actual socialist revolution, the working class as a whole needs to participate in the process and that implies self-management. Therefore the decision making organisations would be based on the party being "mixed up" with the "irremediably confused" as if they were part of a non-Leninist party.

[Grunt]

How to Read Marx's Capital
By Louis Althusser

http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpalthusser11.htm
Thanks a lot, Jacobin ! I really appreciate ! :)

I hope its not too expensive. Will check that out asap.

[Module]

So you want an anti-vanguardism post? OK.
The Russian revolution proves anything but vanguardism works. It did not result in soviet demoncracy, instead installing a extreme centralisation. So did the Bolshevik's means justify it's ends, after they take power in November 1917?
Vanguardism also implies party power over the working class, opposed to people power. However you many be more of a Leninist than me and disagree with such an analogy. By putting everyone who deems themselves as a 'socialist' into one group and agreeing aims and such results in "autocratic" tendencies within that group. It is important to remember that the vanguard party, of the working class, cannot be confused with being the class as awhole.
You could argue that the vanguard isn't the 'embryo' of the workers state but worker councils are, thus the intention of the party is not to be the State. However if they let the workers directly take control of affairs, then this would lead to confusion from within the revolutionary party- thus they need control, this can be linked to Lenin's remark in 1920 that a organisation embracing the whole working class cannot exercise the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that a "vanguard" is required to do so.
Harman of the SWP states- it "is worth noting that in Russia a real victory of the apparatus over the party required precisely the bringing into the party hundreds of thousands of 'sympathisers,' a dilution of the 'party' by the 'class.' . . . The Leninist party does not suffer from this tendency to bureaucratic control precisely because it restricts its membership to those willing to be serious and disciplined enough to take political and theoretical issues as their starting point, and to subordinate all their activities to those." However, to have a actual socialist revolution, the working class as a whole needs to participate in the process and that implies self-management. Therefore the decision making organisations would be based on the party being "mixed up" with the "irremediably confused" as if they were part of a non-Leninist party.

Vanguardism also implies party power over the working class, opposed to people power. However you many be more of a Leninist than me and disagree with such an analogy.I do disagree. As I said earlier, the vanguard refers to the most revolutionised section of the working class. It is the role of the vanguard party to guide the working class in revolution, to bring them to the stage where they are ready to enact a communist revolution themselves.
It does not imply their political power over the working class.

By putting everyone who deems themselves as a 'socialist' into one group and agreeing aims and such results in "autocratic" tendencies within that group.That's an assumption, and one I disagree with.
A vanguard party does not necessarily consist of a concrete set of principles that everybody who deems themselves a socialist is forced to abide by and nobody is allowed to question.

Obviously all political organisations are based around certain shared aims, political views, but you are assuming that, therefore, these aims are dictated by specific sections/people within the organisation rather than, in the case of the vanguard party, the working class, generally. The role of the vanguard [party] is to represent the worker's movement in their own aims - and to act as a force of education, of advancing class consciousness.

Through education of the working class, they are provided with the means to enact revolution themselves - the vanguard party does not seek to do it on their own.
As for Lenin's remark; a vanguard exists in all socialist movements throughout the world. It simply means the most revolutionised section of the working class, and obviously the vanguard has the greatest means to organise a successful revolution than those who have less of an idea. A working class that lacks knowledge of 'socialist theory' won't be able to fully take control of a revolution; and in that sense a 'vanguard' is needed to direct the revolution towards the aims of the working class.

[Cossack]

Wow ! :) You are reading volume 2 already ? Respect, comrade !

Now I feel really stupid, having such difficulties with Vol. 1 ! :(

But its not your fault !! Don't worry !

The fact that you are only 14 and already reading Vol. 2
gives me real motivation and incentive ! Thanks !

actually i couldn't get my hands on vol 1

[Grunt]

Through education of the working class, they are provided with the means to enact revolution themselves - the vanguard party does not seek to do it on their own.
As for Lenin's remark; a vanguard exists in all socialist movements throughout the world. It simply means the most revolutionised section of the working class, and obviously the vanguard has the greatest means to organise a successful revolution than those who have less of an idea. A working class that lacks knowledge of 'socialist theory' won't be able to fully take control of a revolution; and in that sense a 'vanguard' is needed to direct the revolution towards the aims of the working class.
That makes much sense to me.

So: Here I am. The 'working class' (I like 'exploited and oppressed' better
though) ready for education ! :)

[Kropotesta]

I do disagree. As I said earlier, the vanguard refers to the most revolutionised section of the working class. It is the role of the vanguard party to guide the working class in revolution, to bring them to the stage where they are ready to enact a communist revolution themselves.
It does not imply their political power over the working class.
That's an assumption, and one I disagree with.
A vanguard party does not necessarily consist of a concrete set of principles that everybody who deems themselves a socialist is forced to abide by and nobody is allowed to question.

Obviously all political organisations are based around certain shared aims, political views, but you are assuming that, therefore, these aims are dictated by specific sections/people within the organisation rather than, in the case of the vanguard party, the working class, generally. The role of the vanguard [party] is to represent the worker's movement in their own aims - and to act as a force of education, of advancing class consciousness.

Through education of the working class, they are provided with the means to enact revolution themselves - the vanguard party does not seek to do it on their own.
As for Lenin's remark; a vanguard exists in all socialist movements throughout the world. It simply means the most revolutionised section of the working class, and obviously the vanguard has the greatest means to organise a successful revolution than those who have less of an idea. A working class that lacks knowledge of 'socialist theory' won't be able to fully take control of a revolution; and in that sense a 'vanguard' is needed to direct the revolution towards the aims of the working class.
I think it is safe to say that we won't see eye to eye on this subject but to quote the WRP, the British section of the Fourth International- "Our party is the Workers Revolutionary Party and fights to build a leadership throughout the working class and youth to lead the struggle for the British and world socialist revolutions."
Though, are you an advocate of vanguardism?

[Led Zeppelin]

Through education of the working class, they are provided with the means to enact revolution themselves - the vanguard party does not seek to do it on their own.

The main goal of the vanguard, the most advanced section of the class, is to educate the rest of the class, that is true, but I think you forget that the proletariat is bourgeoisified at its inception.

People grow up in a capitalist society, cultural hegemony and the superstructure ensure that the worker is bourgeoisified in terms of their thinking, in Marxist terms it means that they are alienated.

We don't have the means or tools in a pre-revolutionary society, that is, a capitalist society, to cause a widespread change in that.

The superstructure has to change before that can be done, so a revolution has to be carried out by a minority, supported by a majority.

I really don't see the majority of people becoming class-conscious in the context of a capitalist society, but I do see them reaching the understanding that the system has to change, and that is where we need them to be.

[Malakangga]

a very very very difficult book to learn

[Grunt]

The main goal of the vanguard, the most advanced section of the class, is to educate the rest of the class, that is true, but I think you forget that the proletariat is bourgeoisified at its inception.

People grow up in a capitalist society, cultural hegemony and the superstructure ensure that the worker is bourgeoisified in terms of their thinking, in Marxist terms it means that they are alienated.
I understand that. I know what 'alienation' means.

Does that mean it is the 'first task' to make the bourgeoisfied
Expoited and Opressed aware of their situation ?

[Grunt]

a very very very difficult book to learn
Thanks red ! Thats why I decided to start with some other books
first.

Thnaks for being honest ! :)

[Led Zeppelin]

I understand that. I know what 'alienation' means.

Does that mean it is the 'first task' to make the bourgeoisfied
Expoited and Opressed aware of their situation ?

Sure, that is the first task, actually if you take together all our other tasks it is aimed at exactly that goal; to increase class-consciousness by all means possible.

[Grunt]

Sure, that is the first task, actually if you take together all our other tasks it is aimed at exactly that goal; to increase class-consciousness by all means possible.
Good. Because once one is aware that one is being exploited and
opressed - one wonders what can be done about that. Right ?

I myself am at that point. And now its study-time ! :)

Thanks to all you fine comrades - I now have a good reading
list ! Thanks to all of you !

But, of course, I do not know yet wahts to become of me, when
I educated myself. Marxist, Trotzkyist, Anarchist....

I don't know yet.

[Module]

I think it is safe to say that we won't see eye to eye on this subject but to quote the WRP, the British section of the Fourth International- "Our party is the Workers Revolutionary Party and fights to build a leadership throughout the working class and youth to lead the struggle for the British and world socialist revolutions."
Though, are you an advocate of vanguardism?
To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure :p
I'm just trying out arguing different points of view ... since admittedly a real understanding of the perspective of vanguardism is something I'm fairly new to ... and I'm acknowledging that a lot of my previous opinions of Leninism and vanguardism are not based in detailed theoretical understanding of their ideas, rather a lot of assumptions and an 'anarchist perspective'.
(Sorry if I was rude to you before, by the way. I've been a bit stressed lately)

LZ, I'll reply to you later on, since I should actually be working at the moment,
But yeah ;)

[rouchambeau]

I haven't read any of the previous comments, so I may repeat what others have said.

I've heard that reading Capital somewhat backwards is the best way to go. The latter chapters are easier to read and will give you some idea of what Marx is getting at in the first few chapters. A good number of the chapters are not even worth reading; it's not like there isn't anything of value in them, but that they probably aren't worth the effort. I am speaking of chapters like 10, 13, and 20-22.

I would recommend reading Capital with someone else. Doing so better enables one to understand the text and bounce ideas off of another.

Best of luck to you.